About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
america are movies, tv, science, technology. they're not keen on democracy as america preaches it. heading into another four years of the obama administration, where are we, and why are we here, and how do we get somewhere else? what went wrong, what is going right, and what to do about it going forward? >> first of all, i do not think that favorability ratings and the pew surveys of evidence of whether we're doing something wrong or right. i think it is a huge mistake for anybody who practices public diplomacy to think that his or her job is to win a popularity contest. well i guess maybe some of us who were in the bush administration can take a certain pleasure in effect in 2008, the favorability ratings for the united states were higher in four out of the five surveyed arab countries -- i am not even going to bring that up. [laughter] and it is a big mistake. in my view, and what i tried to do during my short tenure as undersecretary, is try to focus attention on what public diplomacy can do to achieve specific ends that are part of their goals in foreign policy and national security po
as advances in military and defense technology. from last week, this runs just over an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. my name is gideon and i'm the editor of foreign affairs and it is a wonderful privilege and honor and pleasure to be here again at the halifax from. foreign affairs is in the business of serious discussions by knowledgeable people with important issues, free and frank exchanges on the most important questions out there and that's actually the same business that halifax is and so we are delighted to be the media sponsor, and it is going to be fantastic weekend. let me just cut right to the chase. we have a fantastic panel, and more importantly, a great topic and a wonderful group with all of you as well and so let's get right to it. our panelists here, david singer of "the new york times," the former undersecretary deputy secretary of state for global affairs now a fellow at the center at harvard. the head of telefax holders distinguished sibling, the munich security conference where they have a great group. the point of the session is to do some big thinking on
a major, new bold investment program, going into a new market, expanding a new technology, ect., you are worried about what the tax rate will be when that's generates cash in nine years. the best thing to do is create a lower rate, an expectation that there's not giant tax increases later. >> i agree with that. i think we should do in, but, a, you know we have the highest statutory right and no higher than average effective rates because we have the narrowest base of owl corporate income in the world. >> yeah. >> one of the reasons we have that system is because people like us argued for many years that the more efficient thing, the more, the better way to encourage investment was not to cut the corporate rate, but to have massively accelerated depreciation, expansion of investment, focusing on incentives rather than cutting the rate overall. i think the intuition is changing, but the way we're going it cut the rate is not by closing loopholes, but come out a painful expansions of the base like getting rid of accelerated depreciation and things which have a value so i think -- >> is
. trying to use new, smart technology, that kind of stuff, pretending to get solutions and at the same time, let's say the political diplomatic approach doesn't provide solution in the end. so, isn't it a signal that we are shifting from her politics and diplomacy and rely on tools of solutions. >> is the war on terror divided into a problem rather than addressing the more fundamental issues that might have led to the spread in popularity of chiapas in the first place? >> i certainly think the footprint strategy is intended to do exactly what the questioner is suggesting here, which is simply one of containment, but to do without sending in 100,000 troops and accepting a chilling doublers along the way. but you think about the american reaction to 9/11, 9/11 cost the attackers may be have been dollars of "the new york times" went about trying to do an assessment at the 10 year anniversary of what we spend in total in reaction to 9/11. everything from rebuilding the buildings to the wars in afghanistan and iraq to homeland security and so forth. the number we came up with was $3.3 trillion i
and response technologies, education research and training. and more than $1 billion will go to the united states coast guard trust fund to be available for clean up and compensation for those affected by oil spills in the gulf and throughout the united states. now as part of its guilty plea b.p. will retain a monitor for four years who will oversee safety and maintenance in regard to drilling in the gulf as well as an independent auditor who will conduct annual reviews to ensure compliance with the terms of this agreement. the company will hire an ethics monitor to improve it's its conduct and foster robust cooperation with the government. now there can be no question that this historic announcement is a critical step forward and under scores the justice determination to stand with gulf coast communities. in february the settlement tote ling $90 million related to the company's clean water act liability for the deep water horizon disaster. and approximately $45 million of this total will go directly to the gulf in the form of penalties. but our work is far from over. in the trips that my
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5